I have not posted here in a long time, I find this blog useful at times, there are wonderful people here, but to support this Galen man is even something I will not do. He had his 2nd chance and blew it. For all the 100s of thousands of RCs that made a mistake, paid for their crime and went on to live a productive life and have never even thought about reoffending this man just gave many a slap in the face. I do not care what anyone says, it is NOT normal behavior for a 30 something man to text 16 year old boys especially when this man is gay and has been convicted of offenses of the same nature. He was using a grooming technique plain and simple.

Rew I really do not think that Gravens threw him under the bus, I myself think Galen threw his self under the bus. I want change just like everyone else but I also want to make sure people are protected from Animals like Galen. Over the years as a mentor in sex offender treatment groups you learn what to look for, (the red flag) luckily most of the men and women accept full responsibly for their actions, do not try and minimize their actions and just try and move on with their life but every once in a while you have someone that will continue their actions, such is Galen IMO. I will NOT support any group that he is with. Sometimes I wish that the groups would just get together and find a workable tier system to support that would at least allow many to get a chance of getting off the registry.

I agree with all of what all of you say! I do but I guess I am not wording what I mean to say well enough. It is just not so black and white for me. Like I said I am mad as hell that he did this (although I am not clear on exactly what "he did") - and that is my point! Yes it might be completely creepy but the fact is that if not for being an RSO his texts may have been creepy but they did not cross the line of being criminal. I realize that it was criminal becasue of his status.

Janet - when I advocate I do so for EVERYONE - regardless of crime or status. And that is becasue I believe it is the RSO laws that need reforming in a big way. The laws in their present form are wrong for everyone. I do not pick and choose who I think deserves the punishment and who does not.

To reiterate I am mad as hell that he re-offended because it makes us all look bad but them I ask myself did he really re-offend? He may have engaged in behavior that was stupid because of his status but did he re-offend? Because what I see is that he really did not. We cannot put things into the mix that go to the workings of his mind (like grooming) or anything else AND (and this is a big and) how do we know that we are reading an accurate account of what transpired? Is it so hard to imagine that things are not as they seem? Is it too had to imagine that he is falsely accused? I do not know that but it is where I stand for Galen and all - when we jump in and start condemning someone becasue of what we think, or read, or surmise then we are just like THEM

I should not say I agree with everything all of you say ....I do not agree with the calling anyone an animal ... gee whiz folks that is what the outsiders do to us and guess what? the majority of people call ALL of us animals! It always amazes me how quick those that have suffered these archaic laws are ready to push a particular person to a new category - one that is "worse" than they are ....

Advocate2 : Well you say you are "mad as hell that he re-offended because it makes US all look bad? but then, (You say,) " I ask myself did he really re-offend?" To mentally try to turn back the clock and "make it not so is to collude with continuing harms done because we don't have courage to deal with the truth. Facing the truth of our betrayal by someone we all admired is too hard. But, What about the 16 years old?
What about the misuse of Galen's power to do good that betrays us all?

Does any of this sound familiar? Many of us have gone through this in our own families. "We" here in advocacy are an extended family of sorts.We are re-enacting all the denial, all the sorrow, all the shock family members feel when faced with the truth of sexual harms done to youngsters in their own families who deserved to better but, instead, were taken advantage of by someone close to them.

The fork in the road (whether to say and support or to go and distance ourselves...come when the person we loved and trusted either takes responsibility for harms done (seeks help) or quibbles, claims THEY are one being victimized ( this is not to ignore that some people actually are innocent, and some are pilloried) but when there is actual evidence that this person has betrayed trust done harm to those they should have protected... well we mush find courage to face the truth just as our loved one must find courage to face the truth and accept responsibility for harm done, seek help and make amends and be trustworthy in future.

Galen's case has chosen to repeat the same patterns agWhen he felt himself about to go down the slippery slope once again, he instead kept on calling and texting a 16 year old choosing to repeat previous harms done. It was his choice to do what he did.

We in the advocacy movement have to have courage to face our own truth: we have been played. To continue in denial is only to collude with harms done, turn our backs on the truth and give ourselves over (again) to their "grooming" of us as well as of the 'child' Unless we choose to fail in our own duty to protect and decide to blame the victim/ or 'the system' or the person with courage to stop the harm by reporting.

No one says we should kick Galen to the curb...but we should face the truth: Galen has betrayed not only the 16 year old, not only "the movement family' but himself and so far Galen seems only focused on himself depending upon his powers to manipulate us all to get get him out of a mess he himself chose to create.

As Galen says: "If you are magnetic, you can draw people into you and hold them there---they buy into you, believe you, love you." (and that by the way is the very definition of 'grooming" and the motivation for the 'texting" of the 16 year old reveling not just in the eventual end game but in his power to draw the 16 year old to him...make him love him and fair game for betrayal of that trust) )

And if the person with "magnetic power to draw people" is only interested in satisfying his own ego, his own sexual needs and not interested in 'advocacy' except to add to demonstrate his own power? He has betrayed people in Cure who are still in shock, who don't want to believe Galen could have done what he did. I posted their call for letters of support here on Daily Strength but I have since been advised by someone trustworthy in Cure that there is "more to this" and Galen's assertion that "they are trying to get me" are not the actual story. Because of that clear headed assessment I did not send a letter.

As more information comes out, we will all have to make our own decision as to whether we should still buy into this "magnetic pied piper"? Galen chose this second slippery slope and apparently does not think he made any mistake, feels instead he is the "victim' we should all rally around. He still seems to think we will ignore the harms done and 'forgive' because we too were drawn to him.

Sigh ....I am only mad as hell that what he has done LOOKS like what every one (including you) believes about sex offenders.

I forgive, I reserve judgement. If I had concrete proof that he somehow made this 16 yr old a victim I might look at it differently - but by all accounts the 16 yr old was not victimized

I get it that you miss my point or think differently than I do but this wears me out frankly. Be angry all you want (at me, at Galen, whoever?) But you twist my words or perhaps I do not get my meaning across - when I say I am mad as hell that he re-offended I do not mean I am necessary mad at him - I am mad at the system that he is caught up in ....

I mean look at it this way.....what exactly is everyone upset with him about? That he did something creepy? Ok, maybe but being creepy is not a crime. That he perhaps went too far with this young man? Ok but also not a crime for MOST people. And then the bottom line is this ... he violated his parole (not by committing another sex crime but by talking to another human in the forbidden category)

Also, you talk about "someone trustworthy in Cure" and I know that we all have friends that we trust and talk to on the internet but the fact is unless that person is in the inner circle (lawyers, doctors, LE) they really cannot have all the facts and are only basing things on what they assume to be true.

What exactly are the " harms done" - as far as I can see the only harm is that he violated his parole. In FL that is not hard to do.....

Nice to see you back BuildingUpSlow.

Advocate, you say what Galen did wasn't "technically illegal" because he didn't act on anything. So, is it your opinion that he can groom a child (and he was) as long as they don't act on it? Of all people, Galen certainly shouldn't have been texting a 16 yr old. There are pleantly of gay men who are 18+ he can flirt and attempt a relationship with them.

In the story Josh told Gelen to knock it off, but he refused, so he took the next step to notify the mother of the teen. Josh recognized the signs of grooming, and didn't just sit back and allow it to happen. We want reform, but we also need to let people know that we aren't about protecting abusers so they can continue abusing. We want reform so that those who have completed their sentence and haven't reoffended to be able to live their lives without the Scarlet letter. By saying, he "technically" didn't do anything illegal (even though it was an order of the court NOT to have any communication with anyone under 18) is EXACTLY what the opposition wants us to say. I will not defend Galen. What he did was wrong and dispite people warning him to stop, he proceeded to engage in an activity that would have surely ended with him actually breaking the law.

Building up slow and Though as Weak: I too support a reform movement that says: "We want reform, but we also need to let people know that we aren't about protecting abusers so they can continue abusing... We want reform so that those who have completed their sentence and haven't re-offended are able to live their lives without the Scarlet letter."

I, too, do not believe that Galen is being unfairly "targeted" in retaliation for his advocacy or for his sexual orientation. Galen offered himself as a someone now worthy of all our trust (even though he errored and harmed children in the past.)

Galen is now being called to account for breaking his parole conditions but he wants us all to feel sorry for him as the "victim" and ignore his careful preparation to do harm to yet another (targeted) under-age victim. There are 'red flags" and those ' Flags' were created by Galen himself.

As Thought as Weak says, "There are plenty of gay men who are 18+ he can flirt and attempt a relationship with them. Galen's claim he is being singled out (martyred?) because of social prejudice against same-sex relationships (toclaim he is a sexual minority) insults all those who have fought so hard for the legitimate right to form a loving sexual relationship with an equal adult no matter the other adult's sexual orientation. It also insults those labeled as 'pedophiles' who have restrained themselves and have chosen not to re-offend because they too have chosen NOT to harm children no matter their own personal 'sexual-minority."

Galen says he is a "sexual minority" but Galen has chosen to 'flirt' with being one of the minority, the 3-5% of sexual recidivists the haters love to point to as reason to believe "once a sex offender always a sex offender"
Our advocacy is resilient and we will survive, sadder and wiser but clear that "We want reform so that those who have completed their sentence and haven't re-offended are able to live their lives without the Scarlet letter." As Though as Weak makes clear, our advocacy is "not about protecting (any abuser) so that they can continue abusing."

I am sorry I will never "buy in" to the popular thing of criminalizing someones thoughts, words. or based on what they "might" do ... this is based on what Galen might have done or what was in his mind. While someone may think they know (and may be correct about it) you really do not. I stand by what I said - except for the fact he was on parole what he did was not criminal no matter how much one might hate it or be against it. There are a lot of people out there that say or do things I do not like but it does not mean I support treating them as a criminal.

Sorry my opinion is not a popular one but it will not change ...

And Galen never said he was unfairly targeted and he never said "you can trust me now" what he has always said is that the laws are wrong - and they are - for everyone

And yes I am saying that legally, as far as I know, there is no law against grooming anyone. Especially not the conversation I saw ... you may not like it but he never said anything sexual (which is illegal to a minor) or anything about having sex etc. He broke his parole rule ....that is the illegality here not what he actually did.

Again, I say, everyone is misunderstanding me - and that is ok because I am used to it with certain people here. I am not saying that what he did was right or that it was wrong. What I am saying is that the system sucks for everyone and if you truly believe that then it is not based on the people you think are worthy of that support it is based (and should be based) on ALL - what I hear going on here is everyone jumping ship and saying Galen is no longer worthy of support or advocacy and I am saying to pick and choose is not fair. And in case you haven't noticed the public puts him, people with worse crimes, and the rest all int he same basket ...so the hierarchy of who is worthy and who isn't is something created by us ...and I for one do not support that line of thinking and never will

And what "line of thinking" do you support?

No one denies that draconian sex offender laws do harm all of us ( to our children and our families googled and blamed and shamed in many ways) but how does that line of thinking lead to the idea that we should therefore ignore/ minimize the harms done/ or plainly about to be done to children because to report "red flags" might lead to further 'harm' being done to an "offender" never mind the child? This is not an either or here.

"The System hurt me more than I hurt the child/ victim" is not a acceptable 'defense" / excuse for risky behavior. "The system is likely to hurt Galen more than the 16 year old boy would have been hurt by Galen had all this been ignored/ allowed to continue until every one could be certain?'

Do advocates have to wait until the child is actually under the bus to tell Galen to halt and desist and don't throw any more children (or yourself) under any more buses? And by the way Galen, one of your parole conditions is to stay away from Buses period!

Galen should thank his luck stars he did not get further along the bus path before his friend and the boy's mother protected both the 16 year old and Galen too. As it is Galen is facing revocation...not more serious charges. And the 16 year old may be embarrassed at how far the texting went...but...

Many advocates live in families where protecting children is the Gold Standard proving their loved one's very real recovery .

What Galen did was an extremely stupid thing to do there's no question about that and by doing it he betrayed the trust of many. Now he is being charged with violating the terms of his supervision.

It's being called a technical violation and everyone is assuming that's only because he never crossed the line into illegal acts and was firmly on the path to creating another victim by grooming an innocent child that was in desperate need of protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. You may not like it, you may think it was inappropriate, you may even think it was creepy and firmly believe a child was just saved from serious harm but the harsh reality is Galen could have done much much more including engaging in a physical relationship and he would still just be facing the exact same technical violation.

The person he was contacting is a 16 year old living in Minnesota. The age of consent in Minnesota is 16. Galen resides in Virginia where the age of consent is 15. While Galen's communications may have been very close to violating federal law nothing he was doing could ever be considered illegal in Minnesota or Virginia. If Galen wasn't under supervision there's precious little the 16 year old's mother could have legally done to affect Galen in any way, shape or form as long as the 16 year old consented to the contact. By definition this was not a situation where a victim was being groomed and would have led to Galen committing an "actual crime"

As far as the technical violation goes there is a possibility Galen will win. Even though his terms of supervision clearly stated no contact with anyone under the age of 18 these kinds of conditions must be reasonably related to the crime of conviction. At first glance it would seem like this restriction is reasonably related however given the age of consent in Virginia it's possible it will be declared overly broad. It's going to be very difficult for the State to say no contact with anyone under the age of 18 is reasonably required to protect 15, 16 and 17 year old individuals from Galen when under any other circumstances those same 15, 16 and 17 year individuals could legally consent to any type of contact with him.

aladdin4d: you say As far as the technical violation goes there is a possibility Galen will win." So he's being charged with "technical" violations and there is a good possibility (since he has a good lawyer and much support) that he will get off on the' technicalities' you mention...so what then? Galen is free to do what? The same thing all over again? Jailhouse lawyer-ing, technicalities and politics aside ...can we trust Galen's 'good judgment" in the future? Do we just brush this all aside and hope for the best? You know if I was with a guy with a (past) track record for adultery and I found out he was engaged in texting some one very like his last "relationship ...even if he talked his way out I might wonder about the future of our relationship going forward. Just saying...Good grief Galen. JanetM

The "technical" in technical violation refers to a specific type of violation. It's a real term and not a euphemism for something more sinister or a means of minimizing anything. A technical violation occurs when there has been a violation of the terms of supervision but the violation was not criminal and cannot result in a new offense.

The possibility I mentioned is above a mere technicality. There are states that limit the prohibition on contact with minors to the age of consent for the reasons I stated (I live in one). Justice is a two edged sword. The State can't unilaterally claim a prohibition against contact with individuals at or above the age of consent is reasonable AND say the same individuals are legally able to consent to any contact.

So what if Galen wins? If he wins he is absolutely free to do the same thing all over again. He wasn't doing anything illegal. If he had been doing something illegal he would be facing new criminal charges and a violation for having committed new crimes not a technical violation. If he wasn't under supervision nothing would have ever happened to him. As I said before you may not like it or you may even think much worse things about the situation but that's the reality. Whether or not you trust his judgement in the future is entirely up to you. There are reasons why you probably shouldn't but going around telling everybody he was re-offending and about to create another victim like you have been on this thread isn't helping the situation either. It's not accurate and all it does is add fuel to the all sex offenders will re-offend fire

I am always amazed how we have a nation filled with people who tear into someone for having sex with a 14 to 17 year old, on the claim that they are a "child," and yet, states give these same 14 to 17 year old "kids" the legal right to consent to engage in sex. It is a severe contradiction and in effect is a form of double jeopardy, i.e. I can have sex with you at the age of 14 on the premise that you are adult enough to give your consent, but if you then claim later that you did not want to have sex, I am charged with a crime on the premise that all of a sudden you are now a child who is incapable of making your own decisions. And the worst part is, states are actually getting away with this gross contradiction in law to label people as child molesters who are not because the person is of legal age to consent no different than if the person were 30 or 60 years old.

Now, let's address the Elephant in the room here . . .

I think we need to recognize that the fact is, in society we have individuals who are sexually attracted to people that are under the age of 18, and in reality, numerous states actually and legally encourage and condone this sexual attraction by having state laws that say a person is legally permitted to marry at the age of 14 (Missouri), and give their own legal consent to have sex at the age of 15 (Virginia) or 16 (Michigan). We may take personal exception to this sexual attraction based on moral grounds, but legally it is perfectly acceptable, encouraged, and condoned providing that the person's age falls within the purview of state laws of [age] consent.

Thus, setting aside any personal objection people have based on their moral arguments, the fact is that Galen's sexual attraction to the 16 year old kid was (and no matter how much a person does not like it) factually and legally encouraged and condoned by state laws that gave this 16 year old guy the legal right to consent to have sex in both states. In legal realms the argument becomes one of Galen having the absolute, positive, and specific legal right to communicate with the 16 year old kid because he was of legal age to consent in both states. As a result, the court order violates his state and / or constitutional rights.

Think of it in this way: A man sexually assaults a 30 year old and the court orders the person not to have any contact with anyone 30 years old or younger because the alleged victim is 30 years old. It is absurd and violates one rights of free speech. If the state is going to say it is okay to have sex with a 15, or 16 year old because the state and its law says they are of legal age to give their own consent then the court looses its foundation to bar speech with anyone under 18 simply and only because the person (alleged victim) is 15 or 16 and thus, of legal age to consent as if the person were in fact a 30 year old and there are no extenuating circumstances involved.

Extenuating circumstances include, but are not limited to, the minor having a qualified disability that substantially impairs or prevents their ability to make informed decisions, the minor is legally prohibited from giving their own consent even though they are of legal age to consent because the minor was given a court appointed legal guardian, the minor is under the influence of any drug, medication, or alcohol to impair their ability to give or deny consent, or the minor did not want the sexual advances and made their objection known to the other person.